A pivotal scene accurately encapsulates the philosophy that permeates both Chuck Palahniuk's original novel, Fight Club, and David's film adaptation Fincher, the so-called human sacrifice scene. Overall, there is a fidelity between the adaptation and the original, however, the sacrifice scene in particular stands out for the creative demarcation of the two works. In Palahniuk's version, the narrator points a gun at convenience store owner Raymond K. Hessel, interrogating him and threatening the clerk with death unless he returns to his previous ambitions. The narrator tells him, “You could be at school working like crazy, Raymond Hessel, or you could be dead” (Palahniuk 154). The film depicts this act perpetrated by Durden. The Narrator is present in the scene, however, the script calls for him to "become even paler [...] slumped against a tree" (Fight Club). This makes the narrator seem passive rather than active. Why then would Fincher choose to depict the scene as he did, and what effect does this change have on the film? I propose that the difference exists to add a visual element to essential aspects of the story, as well as to meet the artistic expectations of the audience. of work. Because this edit is Fincher's most significant edit, it ultimately helps answer the question of when an adaptation is different from the original work. The addition of Durden to the scene helps maintain the idea that he and the Narrator are separate people. Later, in the film and book, the narrator realizes that Tyler is actually him – a split personality created by insomnia. The film depicts this through flashback methods. Until now, it was necessary to maintain a clear distinction between the two...... middle of paper ...... the departure is significant because it changes the fundamental relationship between the main characters and gives the film's audience a different impression of them from that which readers of the novel would have. Despite the difference in which character is important in the scene, it is important to note that the overall feeling remains. Threatening Hessel is inherently nihilistic and sadistic. It's a fact, no matter who puts the gun to Hessel's head. Fincher's choices show that to create a truly successful adaptation, two criteria must be met. First, the story must be modified enough to allow the works to be seen as analogous rather than complementary. It is equally important that the film be philosophically faithful to the novel. This shows that even if an adaptation maintains the same core message, it can still be a distinctly distinct work of art..